Appreciate her 2008 advocacy for Hillary. And it was our loss that she never was able to get back into public office after 1984 and that historic but very mixed-bag VP race.

She really got raked over the coals by the MSM and GOP in '84, though much of it had to do with her husband's own business practices and finances. Not very often even a P candidate gets such careful scrutiny by the media for the spouse's conduct, let alone the VP's spouse.

Probably entirely irrelevant that she was a she, and a Dem, and, oh yes, was on a ticket that was trying to unseat the media's Saint Ronnie and the CIA's Poppy.

early Fri. morning mtg. (no court). He blasted Ferraro as incompetent, a joke, etc. to his captive audience. This was immed. after she was chosen. I seethed, until a confidential investigation into the appropriateness of how he rated a colleague in her performance report. Then, after being asked if there was anything at all I wanted to say: I did. Investigator sd., that was inappropriate.

It is with great pride and pleasure that I write to the SOPP community and say that I have been appointed by the First Lady to a White House Task Force entitled Enhancing the Psychological Well-Being of The Military Family.

The first meeting will be at the White House next Tuesday (the 29th) and will be hosted by Mrs. Obama and her staff. Indeed, I feel honored and privileged to represent the SOPP, WSU and the APA in this important endeavor.

But Glenn says:

On its own website, HLS's Human Rights Program reported that James sent this email "to colleagues and students of Wright State University, where Dr. James serves as Dean of the School of Professional Psychology."

The White House, however, now tells a much different story. In an email to me from the First Lady's Communications Director, the White House claims:

Several members of the White House staff are convening a meeting with multiple mental health professionals on Tuesday to discuss issues pertaining to the wellness of military families. SAMHSA and the American Psychological Association have both been asked to attend. We understand that Dr. James is involved with these groups and may have been indirectly invited to attend this meeting.

She claims, however, that he now will not be at that meeting, and further states that "Dr. James has not been appointed to serve in any capacity with the White House."

There's obviously quite a discrepancy between the claims in the James email as provided by HLS' Human Rights Project and the White House's claims. Calls to Dr. James regarding this matter have not been returned, but if I speak with him, I'll post his response to the White House's denials

Will look forward to the explanation for why

Of all the psychologists to choose from, why would they possibly choose to honor and elevate the former chief psychologist of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib at the height of the Bush abuses? More disturbing still, among those most damaged by detainee abuse are the service members forced to participate in it; why would the White House possibly want to put on a task force about the health of military families someone, such as Dr. James, who at the very least is directly associated with policies that so profoundly harmed numerous members of the military and their families?

which made me think you had some interest; maybe your interest was only that you thought it would have meaning for someone who is part of a military family.

I had read it independent of your mentioning it here, and I was struck by the discordant note it sounded - and that might be the most charitable spin I could put on it: "discordant."

I also thought that in light of the Bradley Manning situation, having any association with James might be the last thing the president would want; if there is an association, it puts the "I checked with the Pentagon and they said everything's being done by the book" in a whole different light.

Yes, I'm worried about Libya - I fear the slow but inexorable drawing-in to full-blown US military action, but I seem to be cursed with this damnable ability to worry about more than one thing at a time...

It emerges that the main opposition to Gaddafi comes from two very curious organizations--the National Front for the Salvation of Libya and a bizarre group calling itself the Islamic Emirate of Barqa, the former name of the North-Western part of Libya. Its leadership claims the group is made up of former al-Qaeda fighters previously released from jail. Their record of bloodshed is impressive to date.

The main opposition group in Libya now is the National Front for the Salvation of Libya which is reported to be funded by Saudi Arabia, the CIA and French Intelligence. They joined with other opposition groups to become the National Conference for the Libyan Opposition. It was that organization that called for the "Day of Rage" that plunged Libya into chaos on February 17. 14

The key figure in the National Front for the Salvation of Libya is one Ibrahim Sahad who conveniently enough lives in Washington. According to the Library of Congress archives, Sahad is the same man the CIA used in their failed attempt at a Libyan coup of 1984. The Library of Congress confirms that the CIA trained and supported the NFSL both before and after the failed coup.

[snip]

The new Transitional Council umbrella group is little more reportedly than the old NFSL -- an unelected group of aged monarchist business exiles and now defectors from Gaddafi who smell opportunity to grab a giant piece of the oil pie, and have Saudi, French and CIA backing to drive their dreams of glory. These are the ones on whose behalf now NATO is fighting.

"The U.S. has not just misplaced its priorities . When the most powerful country ever to inhabit the earth finds it so easy to plunge into the horror of warfare but almost impossible to find adequate work for its people or to properly educate its young, it has lost its way entirely."

Overwhelming imbalances in wealth and income inevitably result in enormous imbalances of political power. So the corporations and the very wealthy continue to do well. The employment crisis never gets addressed. The wars never end. And nation-building never gets a foothold here at home.

New ideas and new leadership have seldom been more urgently needed. link

It is a shame that he is leaving the NYT when columns like his final one are needed more than ever.

Tests on Friday showed iodine 131 levels in seawater 30 km (19 miles) from the coastal nuclear complex had spiked 1,250 times higher than normal but it was not considered a threat to marine life or food safety, the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said.

I saw Sucker Punch. I thought it was really, really good. The critical pile-on is slightly depressing but I enjoyed this review (despite disagreeing with its verdict; the comment section is interesting) and this one. Spoiler alert, at least for the first link.

Basically Sucker Punch is the deconstruction of an action movie, and the deconstruction of a lot of sexual tropes. Of course it's not being mass marketed that way which I think is pissing people off. And another problem is that its playing off a lot of current imagery (Sailor Moon, for example) that I think older reviewers are probably unfamiliar with.

But yeah. I thought it was good. Thanks Capt Howdy for tipping me off to the movie, otherwise I doubt I would have bothered.

but I saw it in February, around pitchers/catchers reporting, along with Pride of the Yankees and another one-- oh, the one about Monte Stratton. I don't want to watch the Grover Cleveland Alexander story for many reasons, lol!

I think I must have seen the G.C. Alexander movie as a kid -- back in the 60s on the teevee, they always showed a bunch of crummy baseball movies from the 40s and 50s, often starring William Bendix or actors who clearly had no ability to actually play the game (sadly, that is also true of a good actor, Tony Perkins, who just didn't have the athletic chops to play his character in that Fear Strikes Out movie). Gary Cooper also looked clunky, but the movie was so good otherwise that it didn't seem to matter ...

segment in the Burns baseball series: portraying a wrong-side-of-thirty, PTSD-suffering, alcoholic Alexander slowly making his way out to the mound through the mist late in the game to face "murderers row" and save the game for the Cardinals..

The St Louis manager Hornsby starts telling Alexander how to pitch to Lazzeri and then breaks off and says "imagine ME telling YOU how to pitch"..

anyone but me enjoyed "It Happens Every Spring". If you're going old, don't leave out "Fear Strikes Out" and "The Winning Team" (ignore what becomes of the character than plays Grover Cleveland Alexander). And if you haven't see "The Rookie" it's worth the time only because it's based on a true story. And Mr. Baseball isn't all that bad either if you were a fan of Magnum P.I. You get to see him again wearing a Detroit Tiger's hat.

I had an original screenplay going town around years ago, TAKING THE HILL, about a Vietnam Vet who's hand gets mangled in combat. He comes back bitter and lonely for decades, then in his late 50's realizes by accident one day that he can throw the world's most unearthly knuckleball with his mangled paw. Tries out for indy minor league team in North Dakota, then gets a call up to the majors. Cinderella story, you know the drill, happy ending, blah blah. Everyone loved it, had a producer attached his brother was a good major league pitcher, came very close, but ultimately no one would make it because of...The Rookie. Stay away from it, for me. Ahem.

I like the WHEN IT WAS A GAME series of home movies. I believe they were produced by HBO.

Back when my son was playing Little League, I could cheerfully have strangled some of the parents. Not the parents of my son's teammates- they were all interested and supportive, but not obnoxious. The parents on some of the other teams (not all, just a few, and all the other teams' parents couldn't stand the parents of these few teams) were totally inappropriate and way too negative. From what my younger friends tell me, it may be worse now. Too bad for the kids- they must be embarrassed at how their parents act at games.

My pet peeve is a parent, usually a Dad, who wants to be a great athlete through his son or daughter. (Yes, we have a few girls who want to play.)

Mothers are usually more oriented towards fairness and playing time.

I handle the latter by quietly telling them,"Johnny is playing Right Field because he cannot hit, catch or throw very well. If you work with him at home or the park and be sure he makes all team practices he most likely get better." (You'd be surprised how many parents don't want to spend extra time with the kid and/or making sure they make the team practice.)

If the kid wants to be a great athlete and so does Dad, I try to ignore it when a parent criticizes a kids mistake. But last year I had a Mom bring a 10 year old to tears for striking out. After the game and in private we had a conversation that went like this:

"If you ever do something like that again I will suspend your child to protect him from being abused by you."

It still is a lot of fun. I also help coach JV and V football. But when Grandson moves on I doubt that I will continue.

I tip my cap to you. Listen, just a few years ago, my son was playing in a 7-8 year old league, and every game, I kid you not, EVERY game there were several arguments between coaches and umps, coaches and coaches, one of our parents even got tossed for cursing out the home plate umpire -- of course he was the hardcore dad who already had an older boy playing D-1 ball at Wake Forest, so you can imagine the type. It was just disgusting, and my son never played in that league again.

In my day, tho, I was brought to tears a few times by coaches. A drunk mom (to bust your paradigm a bit) came at our team with a bat after one game. Ah the good old days.

are unnecessary, intrusive, and total horse manure. Which blogs do you visit? What blogs do you post comments on? What organizations, civic clubs, etc do you belong to? Why are those the court's business? I suppose you can ask if someone regularly reads about baseball and other sports, no matter the format, but that's about it. And the whole thing is way too long. I particularly object to Question 55, about the jury being "required to accept the law as the judge explains it to you." Nope, sorry. I'm a longtime member of the Fully Informed Jury Association and I believe that juries have the right to judge the law, as well as the facts of the case. (Of course, this affiliation and belief alone would have kept me off of that jury.)

Even if found not guilty of murder, Knox has earned the jail time she has spent so far for blatant perjury leading to the arrest of an innocent man: from wikipedia
"During these interviews, she said that she had gone to the flat with Patrick Lumumba, the owner of a bar-restaurant named Le Chic, at which she occasionally worked.[31][32] She said that she had been in the kitchen when he committed the murder.[33]...Lumumba was arrested on 6 November 2007 as a result of Knox's statements. He was detained for two weeks until the arrest of Guede. Initially, doubts about his alibi were reported in the press,[25] but ultimately he was completely exonerated.[40]"

Patrick Lumumba, the man originally accused of murdering Kercher, sued Knox for defamation and was awarded 40,000.[121] He also pursued compensation from the Italian authorities for unjust imprisonment and the loss of his business and, in December 2009, a court awarded 8,000 in damages.

Amanda apparently lied to the police about Lumumba but did not do it under oath so that may not qualify as perjury in Italy. (I'm not a lawyer nor do i pretend to be one)

Had told many lies to many different people involved in this case. She has not presented herself as a truthful person. So while one of the star witnesses against her now may not be telling the truth, Amanda's own history of lying is still out there. Now she may be innocent, but she has definitely not helped herself out throughout these proceedings.

we don't speak ill of the dead here. That includes repeating comments others make. So let's not start a debate that repeats someone else's offensive comment about Ms. Ferraro. Thanks. (This is intended for anyone thinking of voicing similar sentiments to those attributed to another blogger. I haven't read his comments and don't intend to.)

Also the season finale of 'Shameless'. Just read an interview with Emmy Rossum in which she says one major character will not make it into season two.

That's my pop culture moment.

Currently listening to Gates and HRClinton explain the world. I remain skeptical about military interventions, but they are giving convincing me their best shot. Nice not to have the cowboy blustering of the previous administration. Speaking of which, here comes Rumsfeld.

Haven't had a lot of time to do much research and I don't have cable (gasp!) so no ESPN anymore. Anyone got any sleeper picks that'll help me crush? $100 league, so I should probably make a good effort.